|
MONTANISM |
compiled by Jason Guenther
http://www.ntcanon.org/Montanism.shtml
Montanism, and Montanus (2nd - 3rd century CE)
Montanism, also known as the Cataphrygian Heresy and the New
Prophecy, was a heretical movement founded by the prophet Montanus that arose in the Christian Church in Phrygia, Asia Minor, in the 2nd century. Subsequently it flourished in the West, principally in Carthage under the leadership of Tertullian in the 3rd century. It had almost died out in the 5th and 6th centuries, although some evidence indicates that it survived into the 9th century.
The Montanist writings have been lost. The chief sources for the history of the movement are the Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius, the writings of Tertullian and Epiphanius, and inscriptions, particularly those in central Phrygia.
Little is known about Montanus. Before his conversion to Christianity, he apparently was a priest of the Oriental ecstatic cult of Cybele, the mother goddess of fertility. He appeared at Ardabau, a small village in Phrygia, in the year 156 according to Epiphanius, or if we follow Eusebius, in 172.
He fell into a trance and began "prophesy under the influence of the Spirit". Claiming to be the voice of the Holy Spirit, he announced the fulfillment of the New Testament promise of the Pentecost and the imminent Second Coming of
Christ. He was soon joined by two young women, Prisca (or Priscilla) and Maximilla, who left their husbands and also began to prophesy.
Their pronouncements were written down and gathered together as sacred documents similar to the words of Old Testament prophets or the sayings of Jesus. About a score of such oracles have survived, plainly showing the ecstatic character of this form of utterance,
in that the prophet does not speak in his or her name as a human being, but the Spirit of God is the speaker. Epiphanius quotes Montanus as saying, 'I am neither an angel nor an envoy, but I the Lord God, the Father, have
come'. Such pronouncements were made still more impressive by the manner in which they were presented. According to Epiphanius, a ceremony was held frequently in the churches of Pepuza when 7 virgins, dressed in white and carrying torches, entered and proceeded to deliver oracles to the congregation. He comments that 'they manifest a kind of enthusiasm that dupes those who are present, and provokes them to tears, leading to repentance'.
The movement spread throughout Asia Minor. Inscriptions, some the earliest Christian ones in Asia Minor, have shown that many towns were almost completely converted to Montanism. Phrygia traditionally had been a center of religious mystery rites of Cybele and her consort Attis, whose devotees engaged in frenetic dancing. Hence Montanus and his followers began to be called Phyrgians or Cataphrygians. After the first enthusiasm had waned, however, the followers of Montanus were found mainly in the rural districts.
The essential principle of Montanism was that the Paraclete, the Spirit of truth, whom Jesus had promised in the Gospel according to John, was manifesting himself to the world through Montanus and the prophets and prophetesses associated with him. This did not seem at first to deny the doctrines of the church or to attack the authority of the bishops. The church acknowledged the charismatic gift of some prophets.
It soon became clear, however, that the Montanist prophecy was new. True prophets did not, as Montanus did, deliberately induce a kind of ecstatic intensity and a state of passivity and then maintain that the words they spoke were the voice of the Spirit.
It also became clear that the claim of Montanus to have the final revelation of the Holy Spirit implied that something could be added to teaching of Christ and the Apostles and that, therefore, the Church had to accept a fuller
revelation.
The belief in the imminent Second Coming of Christ was not confined to Montanists, but with them it took a special form that gave their activities the character of a popular revival. They believed the New Jerusalem (Revelation 21) was soon to descend on the Earth at the little Phrygian town of Pepuza. The prophets and many followers went there, and many Christian communities were almost abandoned.
Convinced that the end of the world was at hand, Montanus laid down a rigoristic morality to purify Christians and detach them from their material desires. The new asceticism included the renunciation of marriage (later mitigated to one marriage), arduous fasting, an emphasis on virginity,
the desire for martyrdom, and a stringent penitential regiment for the forgiveness of sin. In contrast to the Gnostic sects of the east that also taught an elitist enlightenment, Montanus' original doctrine eschewed sophisticated principles and speculative mysticism and initially intended his teaching to be a spiritual revival through the new prophecy within orthodox Christianity. On one hand, he honored tradition by acknowledging the biblical basis for Christian belief and accepting its apocalyptic (end of the world) themes. On the other hand, he reacted against the uniformity of a hierarchically organized Christianity that did not allow for the expression of individual religious inspiration. Official criticism of Montanus and his movement consequently emphasized the new prophecy's unorthodox ecstatic expression and his neglect of the bishop's divinely appointed rule. A feature offensive to some in the Church was the admission of women to positions of leadership.
When it became obvious that the Montanist doctrine was an attack on the Catholic faith, the bishops of Asia Minor gathered in synods and finally excommunicated the Montanists, probably ~177. Montanism then became a separate sect with its seat of government at Pepuza. It maintained the ordinary Christian ministry but imposed on it higher orders of patriarchs and associates who were probably successors of the first Montanist prophets. In the West, its most illustrious convert was Tertullian in Carthage; but it declined in importance early in the 5th century. It continued in the East until severe legislation against Montanism by Emperor Justinian I (527-565) essentially destroyed it, but some remnants evidently survived into the 9th century.
Regarding the New Testament canon, the Montanist heresy caused the great Church to develop a mistrust of all recent writings of a prophetical nature. Not only did such a feeling tend to discredit several apocalypses that may have been, in various parts of the Church, on their way to establishing themselves,
but even the Revelation of John was sometimes brought under a cloud of suspicion because of its usefulness in supporting the 'New
Prophecy'.
The above was taken from the Encyclopedia Britannica and [Metzger].
http://www.earlychurch.org.uk/index.html
It has been said with truth that a perfect historian of secular events will never be found, how much less hope can we entertain that the vast field of ecclesiastical history will ever find a really successful explorer.(1)
John De Soyres’ statement is never more true than when applied to the Montanist movement. The main problem that scholars find when discussing this subject is the shortage of information, and the biased nature of the existing sources.
Tertullian (c. 153-225 AD) is virtually the only writer to support the Montanist movement. Following his conversion to Montanism late in life he was condemned by later writers. The Seven Books Against The Church In Defence Of Montanism that he wrote have, sadly, been lost, leaving us with incidental references gleaned from his other works.(2)
About twenty Montanist prophecies have been preserved by Epiphanius,(3) writing in the fourth century, but his objectivity in their selection is open to question. Douglas notes that “Epiphanius is reckoned to be a poor authority on almost any subject.”(4) Probably the two most valuable sources are Tertullian and the Anonymous contemporary of Montanus, quoted in Eusebius’s Church History.(5)
A Brief History of Montanism
As the Christian Church grew in numbers and prosperity the fire that had driven it on began to burn low.(6) The heresies of Marcion and the Gnostics had been halted, but only at a cost. Increasing moral laxity and formalism produced fertile ground for a re-assertion of holiness and freedom in the Holy Spirit (things that the Gnostics had depreciated).(7) Montanism is often described as a reaction against the increasing authority of the Bishops,(8) however this is not wholly correct, for the Montanists appear to have seen themselves as a step forward, rather than a rear-guard action.(9)
Montanism derives its modern name from its founder Montanus, a Phrygian(10) and native of Ardabau, “a village in Mysia” [sic](11) (near the Phrygian border)(12).
According to Jerome(13) (342-420) he was a priest of Cybele, “the Mother of the gods...” This would mean that he had been castrated - as the wild and barbarous worship of Cybele had to be performed by ‘half-men’.(14) Many see a link between the enthusiastic nature of Phrygian worship and the rise of Montanism. However, the link is tenuous and it appears that Jerome may well have accused Montanus of formerly being a priest of Cybele to further discredit his teachings. As John De Soyres points out, “all that we can be certain about Montanus is that he existed,” all other information about him are rumours on which it is impossible to pass judgement.(15)
Until the middle of the late fourth century the movement was known as the Kataphrygians (according to Eusebius, Epiphanius of Cyprus and John of Damascus),(16) a name derived from its place of origin. The date at which Montanus began to proclaim his ‘New Prophecy’ is also widely disputed. Estimates range from 126,(17) 130,(18) 156,(19) to 171-172.(20) De Soyres opts for the earliest date because a movement starting in an obscure village in 172 is unlikely to have spread so fast as to be condemned in Rome the following year.(21) This notwithstanding most modern scholars opt for the later date of around 170.(22)
The ‘New Prophecy’ that Montanus proclaimed grew rapidly in popularity. He was joined by Prisca and Maximilla, two women of rank(23) who left their husbands and families to follow him.(24) Prisca succeeded Montanus as the main Prophet, and later Maximilla followed her, until her death in 179.(25) The fact the leaders were women seems to have been an additional upsetting factor to the Catholic bishops,
who said that they were demon-possessed and attempted to exorcise them.(26)
The movement spread throughout Asia Minor, Thrace, Rome, Gaul and Africa.(27) In 177 (during the persecution of Marcus Aurelius)(28) the imprisoned believers at Lyons sent a letter to the churches of Asia and Phrygia, and despatched Irenaeus as their messenger to Eleutherus, Bishop of Rome.(29) They urged him not to quench the Spirit by taking unduly severe action against the Montanists. It appears that the church in Lyons may have been founded through Phrygian evangelisation.(30) At the end of the second century Montanism reached the province of Africa, where in 206,(31) it captured its greatest convert - Tertullian of Carthage. Most writers agree that the great champion of orthodoxy must have seen something good in the Montanists to throw in his lot with them.(32)
With the spread of Montanism came increasing condemnation and persecution from the Catholic church. It was anathematised by several Asiatic synods before 193.(33) In 202(34) the Sabellian Praxeas persuaded the Bishop of Rome - either Victor or Zephyrinus(35) - to condemn them, despite protests from Tertullian.(36) A synod held at Iconium at the time of Firmillian (d. 268) ordered that converts from Montanism be re-baptised, likewise the later 7th Canon of Constantinople (381) treated them as they would Pagans.(37) Persecution continued in the fourth century under Constantine (c.274-337) until the movement was finally obliterated in the fifth century.
The ‘New Prophecy’
The birth of the ‘New Prophecy’ can be traced to Montanus’s baptism, when he was filled with the Holy Spirit and announced that:
As the dispensation of the Father had given way to the dispensation of the Son, so the dispensation of the Son had now given place to the dispensation of the Holy Spirit, for [he maintained] Christ’s promise of the Paraclete had now been fulfilled.(38)
Closely connected with this was an expectation of the impending Second Advent of Christ and the establishment of the Millennial rule on Earth.(39) The prophesies were given in a state of frenzy and in the first
person, which caused many to question their origin. An example would be: “I am neither angel nor ambassador, but I God and Father, who am come,”(40) which not surprisingly worried many Catholic Bishops. Yet clearly at that time prophecy was not unknown in the churches, although it was becoming less common. The form in which the prophecies came was also not unknown, as similar terms were used by Athenagoras of Athens and Theophilus of Antioch when referring to Old Testament prophets: “The prophets went around in bands, frenzied and prophesying to the sound of music (1 Sam. 10:5-13; 19:18-24). Their ecstasies fired them with zeal for Yahweh.”(41) Justin Martyr denied that the prophet did anything else but speak the actual words - that is he had no control on the prophecy. It was only later in the third century that this view was rejected and Epiphanius laid down the criteria that prophecy must be conscious and intelligent.(42)
Much has been made of the prophecy attributed to Prisca that the New Jerusalem would descend on Pepuza in Phrygia,(43) but again there is no evidence to suggest that this was a literal belief, as it may well have referred to a present rather than a future event.(44) Tertullian believed that the Holy City would soon descend on the site of the old Jerusalem.(45)
With the eager expectation of the Kingdom came an unhealthy tendency to court
martyrdom.(46) Some of their opponents jibed that no Montanist had actually faced death for the Faith,(47) but it is almost certain that Perpetua and Felicita were Montanists when they died in c. 207 at Carthage.(48)
Bigg maintains that they were not only orthodox in doctrine, but that they contributed to the formation of the later Creed.
“They were the first to enunciate the ‘homoousion’ and they were also the first to bestow the title ‘God’ upon the Holy Spirit.”(49) Their main offence was that they were too far ahead of their time.(50) Most modern scholars agree with Bigg that the Montanists were orthodox in belief and practice and only differed on the emphasis that they placed on certain aspects of their faith. In particular they were marked out by their asceticism (especially concerning fasting), in their attitude to marriage,(51) as well as in their moral rigorism.(52)
On the subject of fasting Hippolytus makes the following accusation: “But they introduce new fasts and festivals and the practice of eating dry things and radishes, pretending that the females [Prisca & Maximilla] have enjoined them.”(53) By this time the orthodox church was fasting voluntarily on Wednesdays and Fridays, but the Montanists’ fasts were all compulsory, and lasted until nightfall.(54) Writing in De Jejunis Tertullian states that he only practised two weeks of xerophage(55) a year (Sabbaths and Lord’s Days excepted during that time).(56) Jerome’s accusation that they observed three Lents is probably a later fabrication.(57) Despite these restrictions, as Sherratt points out, “the fasts… were not unlike those which orthodox ascetics had long practised.”(58)
At first the Montanists appear to have had the tendency to renounce marriage (e.g. Prisca & Maximilla and their families), but later their distinctive teaching took the form of a ban on second marriages, for ministers and laity alike.(59) Justifying this practice
Tertullian wrote:
“If Christ abrogated what Moses commanded because from the beginning it was not so why should not the Holy Spirit alter what Paul
permitted.”(60) Tertullian’s statement has led many scholars to conclude that the Montanists rejected Scripture in favour of their new revelations.(61) However, David Wright argues that there are insufficient grounds for such an assumption, though the Montanist rank and file “may have been guilty of extravagant reverence for the teachings of their prophetic leaders, treasuring them, and even appearing to exalt them above the Scriptures themselves.”(62) Clearly Hippolytus was among those who gained such an impression.(63)
It is very likely that as the movement spread its teachings were modified and changed.(64) The Montanists certainly made what some at the time considered excessive use of the writings of John (with their many references to the Paraclete), to such an extent that some extreme Catholics began to doubt their authenticity.(65) F.F. Bruce notes somewhat dryly that this was an excessive price to pay for the maintenance of Catholic unity.(66)
Heresy or Healthy Revival?
Having traced the history of the movement, and discussed its teachings it is not easy to discover any one reason why they were considered heretics at the time. In doctrine they were orthodox, yet their over-emphasis of certain aspects of the Faith proved too much for the Catholic Bishops.(67) The Montanists do not appear to have been anti-hierarchical, but did give the Prophet more authority than was becoming the norm. F.F. Bruce points out that in the Catholic Church the challenge of doctrinal heresy had been countered by increasing the power of the Bishops. Ignatius serves as a good example of an early bishop who clearly believed in prophetic utterances, but in the way that he used them he limited their use in the wider church. His reason for doing this was that only the Bishops, the bastions of orthodoxy could truly be trusted to use the gift correctly.(68)
Coming into this arena the Montanist movement was treated with the subtlety of a steam-hammer and attacked as heretical and divisive. We have already seen that they were probably not heretics at all, but he second point requires further comment. It was the Catholic Church that expelled the Montanists officially. It is possible that this was partly in response to something that we see in Tertullian’s writings: he made a clear distinction between ‘soulish’ and ‘spiritual’ believers - implying a church within a church - and thus leading to spiritual pride among the immature. This ‘super-spirituality’ and their contempt for the Bishop’s condemnation(69) put hem on a collision course that has left the Church poorer, shutting out the charismatic gifts for seventeen centuries.(70)
© 1992 Robert I. Bradshaw rob@biblicalstudies.org.uk
Montanists
Schismatics of the second century, first known as Phrygians, or "those among the Phrygians" (oi kata Phrygas), then as Montanists, Pepuzians, and (in the West) Cataphrygians. The sect was founded by a prophet, Montanus, and two prophetesses, Maximilla and Prisca, sometimes called Priscilla.
CHRONOLOGY
An anonymous anti-Montanist writer, cited by Eusebius, addressed his work to Abercius Marcellus, Bishop of Hieropolis, who died about 200. Maximilla had prophesied continual wars and troubles, but this writer declared that he wrote more than thirteen years after her death, yet no war, general or partial, had taken place, but on the contrary the Christians enjoyed permanent peace through the mercy of God (Eusebius, "Hist. eccl.", V, xvi, 19). These thirteen years can be identified only with the twelve and a half years of Commodus (17 March, 180--31 December, 192). The wars between rival emperors began early in 193, so that this anonymous author wrote not much later than January, 193, and Maximilla must have died about the end of 179, not long before Marcus Aurelius. Montanus and Priscilla had died yet earlier. Consequently the date given by Eusebius in his "Chronicle" -- eleventh (or twelfth) year of Marcus, i.e. about 172 -- for the first appearance of Montanus leaves insufficient time for the development of the sect, which we know further to have been of great importance in 177, when the Church of Lyons wrote to Pope Eleutherius on the subject. Again, the Montanists are co-ordinated with the martyr Thraseas, mentioned chronologically between Polycarp (155) and Sagaris (under Sergius Paulus, 166-7) in the letter of Polycrates to Pope Victor; the date of Thraseas is therefore about 160, and the origin of Montanism must be yet earlier. Consequently, Zahn, Harnack, Duchesne, and others (against Völter and Voigt, who accept the late date given by Eusebius, regard St. Epiphanius (Hær., xlviii, 1) as giving the true date of the rise of the sect, "about the nineteenth year of Antoninus Pius" (that is, about the year 156 or 157).
Bonwetsch, accepting Zahn's view that previously (Hær., xlvi, 1) Epiphanius had given the twelfth year of Antoninus Pius where he should have said M. Aurelius, wishes similarly to substitute that emperor here, so that we would get 179, the very date of the death of Maximilla. But the emendation is unnecessary in either case. In "Hæreses", xlvi, 1, Epiphanius clearly meant the earlier date, whether right or wrong; and in xlviii, 1, he is not dating the death of Maximilla but the first appearance of the sect. From Eusebius, V, xvi, 7, we learn that this was in the proconsulship of Gratus. Such a proconsul of Asia is not known. Bonwetsch accepts Zahn's suggestion to read "Quadratus", and points out that there was a Quadratus in 155 (if that is the year of Polycarp's death, which was under Quadratus), and another in 166, so that one of these years was the real date of the birth of Montanism. But 166 for Quadratus merely depends on Schmid's chronology of Aristides, which has been rejected by Ramsay and others in favor of the earlier chronology worked out by Waddington, who obtained 155 for the Quadratus of Aristides as well as for the Quadratus of Polycarp. Now it is most probable that Epiphanius's authority counted the years of emperors from the September preceding their accession (as Hegesippus seems to have done), and therefore the nineteenth year of Pius would be Sept., 155-Sept., 156. Even if the later and Western mode of reckoning from the January after accession is used, the year 157 can be reconciled with the proconsulship of Quadratus in 155, if we remember that Epiphanius merely says "about the nineteenth year of Pius", without vouching for strict accuracy. He tells us further on that Maximilla prophesied:
"After me there shall be no prophetess, but the end", whereas he was writing after 290 years, more or less, in the year 375 or 376. To correct the evident error Harnack would read 190, which brings us roughly to the death of Maximilla (385 for 379). But ekaton for diakosia is a big change. It is more likely that Epiphanius is calculating from the date he had himself given, 19th of Pius=156, as he did not know that of Maximilla's death; his "more or less" corresponds to his former "about". So we shall with Zahn adopt Scaliger's conjecture diakosia enneakaideka for diakosia enenekonta, which brings us from 156 to 375!9 years. As Apollonius wrote forty years after the sect emerged, his work must be dated about 196.
MONTANISM IN ASIA MINOR
Montanus was a recent convert when he first began to prophesy in the village of Ardabau in Phrygia. He is said by Jerome to have been previously a priest of Cybele;
but this is perhaps a later invention intended to connect his ecstasies with the dervish-like behavior of the priests and devotees of the "great goddess". The same prophetic gift was believed to have descended also upon his two companions, the prophetesses Maximilla and Prisca or
Priscilla. Their headquarters were in the village of Pepuza. The anonymous opponent of the sect describes the method of prophecy (Eusebius, V, xvii, 2-3):
first the prophet appears distraught with terror (en parekstasei), then follows quiet (adeia kai aphobia, fearlessness); beginning by studied vacancy of thought or passivity of intellect (ekousios amathia), he is seized by an uncontrollable madness (akousios mania
psyches). The prophets did not speak as messengers of God: "Thus saith the Lord,"
but described themselves as possessed by God and spoke in His Person. "I am the Father, the Word, and the Paraclete," said Montanus (Didymus, "De Trin.", III, xli); and again:
"I am the Lord God omnipotent, who have descended into to
man", and "neither an angel, nor an ambassador, but I, the Lord, the Father, am come" (Epiphanius, "Hær.", xlviii, 11). And Maximilla said: "Hear not me, but hear Christ" (ibid.); and: "I am driven off from among the sheep like a wolf [that is, a false prophet--cf. Matt., vii, 15]; I am not a wolf, but I am speech, and spirit, and power."
This possession by a spirit, which spoke while the prophet was incapable of resisting, is described by the spirit of Montanus: "Behold the man is like a lyre, and I dart like the plectrum. The man sleeps, and I am awake" (Epiphanius, "Hær.", xlviii, 4).
We hear of no false doctrines at first. The Paraclete ordered a few fasts and abstinences; the latter were strict xerophagioe, but only for two weeks in the year, and even then the Saturdays and Sundays did not count (Tertullian, "De jej.", xv). Not only was virginity strongly recommended (as always by the Church), but second marriages were disapproved. Chastity was declared by Priscilla to be a preparation for ecstasy: "The holy [chaste] minister knows how to minister holiness. For those who purify their hearts [reading purificantes enim corda, by conjecture for purificantia enim concordal]
both see visions, and placing their head downwards (!) also hear manifest voices, as saving as they are secret"
(Tertullian, "Exhort." X, in one MS.). It was rumored, however, that Priscilla had been married, and had left her husband.
Martyrdom was valued so highly that flight from persecution was disapproved, and so was the buying off of punishment. "You are made an outlaw?" said Montanus, "it is good for you. For he who is not outlawed among men is outlawed in the Lord. Be not
confounded. It is justice which hales you in public. Why are you confounded, when you are sowing praise? Power comes, when you are stared at by men." And again: "Do not desire to depart this life in beds, in miscarriages, in soft fevers, but in martyrdoms, that He who suffered for you may be glorified" (Tertullian, "De fuga", ix; cf. "De anima", lv). Tertullian says: "Those who receive the Paraclete, know neither to flee persecution nor to bribe" (De fuga, 14), but he is unable to cite any formal prohibition by Montanus.
So far, the most that can be said of these didactic utterances is that there was a slight tendency to extravagance. The people of Phrygia were accustomed to the orgiastic cult of Cybele. There were doubtless many Christians there. The contemporary accounts of Montanism mention Christians in otherwise unknown villages: Ardabau on the Mysian border, Pepuza, Tymion, as well as in Otrus, Apamea, Cumane, Eumenea. Early Christian inscriptions have been found at Otrus, Hieropolis, Pepuza (of 260), Trajanopolis (of 279), Eumenea (of 249) etc. (see Harnack, "Expansion of Christianity", II, 360). There was a council at Synnada in the third century. The "Acta Theodoti" represent the village of Malus near Ancyra as entirely Christian under Diocletian. Above all we must remember what crowds of Christians were found in Pontus and Bithynia by Pliny in 112, not only in the cities but in country places. No doubt, therefore, there were numerous Christians in the Phrygian villages to be drawn by the astounding phenomena. Crowds came to Pepuza, it seems, and contradiction was provoked. In the very first days Apollinarius, a successor of St. Papias as Bishop of Hierapolis in the southwestern corner of the province, wrote against Montanus. Eusebius knew this letter from its being enclosed by Serapion of Antioch (about 191-212) in a letter addressed by him to the Christians of Caria and Pontus. Apollinarius related that Ælius Publius Julius of Debeltum (now Burgas) in Thrace, swore that "Sotas the blessed who was in Anchialus [on the Thracian coast]
had wished to cast out the demon from Priscilla; but the hypocrites would not allow
it." Clearly Sotas was dead, and could not speak for himself. The anonymous writer tells us that some thought Montanus to be possessed by an evil spirit, and a troubler of the people; they rebuked him and tried to stop his prophesying; the faithful of Asia assembled in many places, and examining the prophecies declared them profane, and condemned the heresy, so that the disciples were thrust out of the Church and its communion.
It is difficult to say how soon this excommunication took place in Asia. Probably from the beginning some bishops excluded the followers of Montanus, and this severity was growing common before the death of Montanus; but it was hardly a general rule much before the death of Maximilla in 179; condemnation of the prophets themselves, and mere disapproval of their disciples was the first stage. We hear of holy persons, including the bishops Zoticus of Cumana and Julian of Apamea, attempting to exorcise Maximilla at Pepuza, doubtless after the death of Montanus. But Themison prevented them (Eusebius, V, xvi, 17; xviii, 12). This personage was called a confessor but, according to the anonymous writer, he had bought himself off. He published "a catholic epistle, in imitation of the Apostle", in support of his party. Another so- called martyr, called Alexander, was for many years a companion of Maximilla, who, though a prophetess, did not know that it was for robbery, and not "for the Name", that he had been condemned by the proconsul Æmilius Frontinus (date unknown) in Ephesus; in proof of this the public archives of Asia are appealed to. Of another leader, Alcibiades, nothing is known.
The prophets are accused of taking gifts under the guise of offerings; Montanus sent out salaried preachers; the prophetesses painted their faces, dyed their eyelids with stibium, wore ornaments and played at dice. But these accusations may be untrue. The great point was the manner of prophesying. It was denounced as contrary to custom and to tradition. A Catholic writer, Miltiades, wrote a book to which the anonymous author refers,
"How a prophet ought not to speak in ecstasy". It was urged that the phenomena were those of
possession, not those of the Old Testament prophets, or of New Testament prophets like Silas, Agabus, and the daughters of Philip the Deacon; or of prophets recently known in Asia, Quadratus (Bishop of Athens) and Ammia, prophetess of Philadelphia, of whom the Montanist prophets boasted of being successors. To speak in the first person as the Father or the Paraclete appeared blasphemous. The older prophets had spoken "in the Spirit", as mouthpieces of the Spirit, but to have no free will, to be helpless in a state of madness, was not consonant with the text: "The spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets." Montanus declared:
"The Lord hath sent me as the chooser, the revealer, the interpreter of this labor, this promise, and this covenant, being forced, willingly or unwillingly,
to learn the gnosis of God." The Montanists appealed to Gen., ii, 21: "The Lord sent an ecstasy [ektasin] upon Adam"; Ps. cxv, 2: "I said in my ecstasy"; Acts, x, 10: "There came upon him [Peter] an ecstasy"; but these texts proved neither that an ecstasy of excitement was proper to sanctity, nor that it was a right state in which to prophesy.
A better argument was the declaration that the new prophecy was of a higher order than the old, and therefore unlike it. It came to be thought higher than the Apostles, and even beyond the teaching of Christ.
Priscilla went to sleep, she said, at Pepuza, and Christ came to her and slept by her side "in the form of a woman, clad in a bright
garment, and put wisdom into me, and revealed to me that this place is holy, and that here Jerusalem above comes down". "Mysteries" (sacraments?) were celebrated there publicly. In Epiphanius's time Pepuza was a desert, and the village was gone. Marcellina, surviving the other two, prophesied continual wars after her death--no other prophet, but the end.
It seems on the whole that Montanus had no particular doctrine, and that his prophetesses went further than he did. The extravagances of his sect were after the deaths of all three; but it is difficult to know how far we are to trust our authorities. The anonymous writer admits that he has only an uncertain report for the story
that Montanus and Maximilla both hanged themselves, and that Themison was carried into the air by a devil, flung down, and so
died. The sect gained much popularity in Asia. It would seem that some Churches were wholly Montanist. The anonymous writer found the Church at Ancyra in 193 greatly disturbed about the new prophecy.
Tertullian's lost writing "De Ecstasi", in defense of their trances, is said by Prædestinatus to have been an answer to Pope Soter (Hær., xxvi, lxxxvi), who had condemned or disapproved them; but the authority is not a good one. He has presumably confounded Soter with Sotas, Bishop of Anchialus. In 177 the Churches of Lyons and Vienne sent to the Churches of Asia and Phrygia their celebrated account of the martyrdoms that had been taking place. Eusebius tells us that at the same time they enclosed letters which had been written in prison by the martyrs on the question of the Montanists. They sent the same by Irenæus to Pope Eleutherius. Eusebius says only that they took a prudent and most orthodox view. It is probable that they disapproved of the prophets, but were not inclined to extreme measures against their followers. It was not denied that the Montanists could count many martyrs; it was replied to their boast, that all the heretics had many, and especially the Marcionites, but that true martyrs like Gaius and Alexander of Eumenea had refused to communicate with fellow martyrs who had approved the new prophecy (Anon. in Eusebius, V, xvi, 27). The acts of Carpus, Papylus,
and Agathonice (the last of these threw herself into the fire), martyrs of Thyatira under Marcus Aurelius (about 161-9), may exhibit an influence of Montanism on the martyrs.
MONTANISM IN THE WEST
A second-century pope (more probably Eleutherius than Victor) was inclined to approve the new prophecies, according to Tertullian, but was dissuaded by Praxeas (q.v.). Their defender in Rome was Proclus or Proculus, much reverenced by Tertullian. A disputation was held by Gaius against him in the presence of Pope Zephyrinus (about 202-3, it would seem). As Gaius supported the side of the Church, Eusebius calls him a Churchman (II, xxv, 6), and is delighted to find in the minutes of the discussion that Gaius rejected the Johannine authorship of the Apocalypse, and attributed it to Cerinthus. But Gaius was the worse of the two, for we know from the commentary on the Apocalypse by Bar Salibi, a Syriac writer of the twelfth century (see Theodore H. Robinson in "Expositor", VII, sixth series, June, 1906), that he rejected the Gospel and Epistles of St. John as well, and attributed them all to Cerinthus. It was against Gaius that Hippolytus wrote his "Heads against Gaius" and also his "Defense of the Gospel and the Apocalypse of John" (unless these are two names for the same work). St. Epiphanius used these works for his fifty-first heresy (cf. Philastrius, "Hær." lx), and as the heresy had no name he invented that of Alogoi, meaning at once "the unreasoning" and "those who reject the Logos". We gather that Gaius was led to reject the Gospel out of opposition to Proclus, who taught (Pseudo-Tertullian, "De Præsc.",
lii) that "the Holy Ghost was in the Apostles, but the Paraclete was not, and that the Paraclete published through Montanus more than Christ revealed in the Gospel, and not only more, but also better and greater things"; thus the promise of the Paraclete (John 14:16) was not to the Apostles but to the next
age. St. Irenæus refers to Gaius without naming him (III, xi, 9): "Others, in order that they may frustrate the gift of the Spirit, which in the last days has been poured upon the human race according to the good pleasure of the Father, do not admit that form [lion] which corresponds with the Gospel of John in which the Lord promised to send the Paraclete; but they reject the Gospel and with it the prophetic Spirit. Unhappy, indeed, in that, wishing to have no false prophets [reading with Zahn pseudoprophetas esse nolunt for pseudoprophetoe esse volunt], they drive away the grace of prophecy from the Church; resembling persons who, to avoid those who come in hypocrisy, withdraw from communion even with brethren." The old notion that the Alogi were an Asiatic sect (see ALOGI) is no longer tenable; they were the Roman Gaius and his followers, if he had any. But Gaius evidently did not venture to reject the Gospel in his dispute before Zephyrinus, the account of which was known to Dionysius of Alexandria as well as to Eusebius (cf. Eusebius, III, xx, 1, 4). It is to be noted that Gaius is a witness to the sojourn of St. John in Asia, since he considers the Johannine writings to be forgeries, attributed by their author Cerinthus to St. John; hence he thinks St. John is represented by Cerinthus as the ruler of the Asiatic Churches. Another Montanist (about 200), who seems to have separated from Proclus, was Æschines, who taught that "the Father is the Son", and is counted as a Monarchian of the type of Noetus or Sabellius.
But Tertullian is the most famous of the Montanists. He was born about 150-5, and became a Christian about 190-5. His excessive nature led him to adopt the Montanist teaching as soon as he knew it (about 202-3). His writings from this date onwards grow more and more bitter against the Catholic Church, from which he definitively broke away about 207. He died about 223, or not much later. His first Montanist work was a defense of the new prophecy in six books, "De Ecstasi", written probably in Greek; he added a seventh book in reply to Apollonius. The work is lost, but a sentence preserved by Prædestinatus (xxvi) is important: "In this alone we differ, in that we do not receive second marriage, and that we do not refuse the prophecy of Montanus concerning the future judgment." In fact Tertullian holds as an absolute law the recommendations of Montanus to eschew second marriages and flight from persecution. He denies the possibility of forgiveness of sins by the Church; he insists upon the newly ordained fasts and abstinences. Catholics are the Psychici as opposed to the "spiritual" followers of the Paraclete; the Catholic Church consists of gluttons and adulterers, who hate to fast and love to remarry. Tertullian evidently exaggerated those parts of the Montanist teaching which appealed to himself, caring little for the rest. He has no idea of making a pilgrimage to Pepuza, but he speaks of joining in spirit with the celebration of the Montanist feasts in Asia Minor. The Acts of Sts. Perpetua and Felicitas are by some thought to reflect a period a Carthage when the Montanist teaching was arousing interest and sympathy but had not yet formed a schism.
The following of Tertullian cannot have been large; but a Tertullianist sect survived him and its remnants were reconciled to the Church by St. Augustine (Hær., lxxxvi). About 392-4 an African lady, Octaviana, wife of Hesperius, a favorite of the Duke Arbogastes and the usurper Maximus, brought to Rome a Tertullianist priest who raved as if possessed. He obtained the use of the church of Sts. Processus and Martinianus on the Via Aurelia, but was turned out by Theodosius, and he and Octaviana were heard of no more. Epiphanius distinguished a sect of Montanists as Pepuzians or Quintillians (he calls Priscilla also Quintilla). He says they had some foolish sayings which gave thanks to Eve for eating of the tree of knowledge.
They used to sleep at Pepuza in order to see Christ as Priscilla had done. Often in their church seven virgins would enter with lamps, dressed in white, to prophesy to the people, whom by their excited action they would move to tears; this reminds us of some modern missions rather than of the Irvingite "speaking with tongues", with which the Montanist ecstasies have often been
compared. These heretics were said to have women for their bishops and priests, in honor of Eve. They were called "Artotyrites", because their sacrament was of bread and cheese. Prædestinatus says the Pepuzians did not really differ from other Montanists, but despised all who did not actually dwell at the "new Jerusalem".
There is a well-known story that the Montanists (or at least the Pepuzians) on a certain feast took a baby child whom they stuck all over with brazen pins. They used the blood to make cakes for sacrifice. If the child died it was looked upon as a martyr; if it lived, as a
high-priest. This story was no doubt a pure invention, and was especially denied in the "De Ecstasi" of Tertullian. An absurd nickname for the sect was Tascodrugitoe, from Phrygian words meaning peg and nose, because they were said to put their forefinger up their nose when praying "in order to appear dejected and pious" (Epiphanius, Hær., xlviii, 14).
It is interesting to take St. Jerome's account, written in 384, of the doctrines of Montanism as he believed them to be in his own time (Ep., xli). He describes them as Sabellians in their idea of the Trinity, as forbidding second marriage, as observing three Lents "as though three Saviours had
suffered". Above bishops they have "Cenones" (probably not koinonoi, but a Phrygian word) and patriarchs above these at Pepuza. They close the door of the Church to almost every sin. They say that God, not being able to save the world by Moses and the Prophets, took flesh of the Virgin Mary, and in Christ, His Son, preached and died for us. And because He could not accomplish the salvation of the world by this second method, the Holy Spirit descended upon Montanus, Prisca, and Maximilla, giving them the plenitude which St. Paul had not
(1 Corinthians 13:9). St. Jerome refuses to believe the story of the blood of a baby; but his account is already exaggerated beyond what the Montanists would have admitted that they held. Origen ("Ep. ad Titum" in "Pamph. Apol.", I fin.) is uncertain whether they are schismatics or heretics. St. Basil is amazed that Dionysius of Alexandria admitted their baptism to be valid (Ep., clxxxii). According to Philastrius (Hær., xlix) they baptized the dead. Sozomen (xviii) tells us that they observed Easter on 6 April or on the following Sunday. Germanus of Constantinople (P.G., XCVIII, 44) says they taught eight heavens and eight degrees of damnation. The Christian emperors from Constantine onwards made laws against them, which were scarcely put into execution in Phrygia (Sozomen, II, xxxii). But gradually they became a small and secret sect. The bones of Montanus were dug up in 861. The numerous Montanist writings (bibloi apeiroi, "Philosophumena", VIII, xix) are all lost. It seems that a certain Asterius Urbanus made a collection of the prophecies (Euseb., V, xvi, 17).
A theory of the origin of Montanism, originated by Ritschl, has been followed by Harnack, Bonwetsch, and other German critics. The secularizing in the second century of the Church by her very success and the disappearance of the primitive "Enthusiasmus" made a difficulty for "those believers of the old school who protested in the name of the Gospel against this secular Church, and who wished to gather together a people prepared for their God regardless alike of numbers an circumstances". Some of these "joined an enthusiastic movement which had originated amongst a small circle in a remote province, and had at first a merely local importance. Then, in Phrygia, the cry for a strict Christian life was reinforced by the belief in a new and final outpouring of the Spirit. . .The wish was, as usual, father to the thought; and thus societies of 'spiritual' Christians were formed, which served, especially in times of persecution, as rallying points for all those, far and near, who sighed for the end of the world and the excessus e soeculo, and who wished in these last days to lead a holy life.
These zealots hailed the appearance of the Paraclete in Phrygia, and surrendered themselves to his guidance" (Harnack in "Encycl. Brit.", London, 1878, s.v.
Montanism). This ingenious theory has its basis only in the imagination, nor have any facts ever been advanced in its favor.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montanists
Montanism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Montanism was an early Christian sectarian movement of the mid-2nd century A.D., named after its founder Montanus. Although the mainstream Christian church prevailed against Montanism within a few generations, this sect persisted in some isolated places into the eighth century. Some people have drawn parallels between Montanism and Pentecostalism (which some call Neo-Montanism).
The most widely known Montanist was undoubtedly Tertullian, who was called the "Father of the Latin Church" (before his defection to Montanism) because he was the first major Latin writer and coined a number of Latin terms such as
trinitas, novum testamentum, tres personae, una
substantia.
History
Shortly after Montanus' conversion to Christianity, he began travelling among the rural settlements of Asia Minor, preaching and testifying. Montanus was accompanied by two women, Prisca, sometimes called Priscilla, and Maximilla, who also purported to be the embodiments of the Holy Spirit that moved and inspired them.
He claimed to have received a series of direct revelations from the Holy Spirit and to be the paraclete of the Gospel of John 14:16. As they went, "the Three" as they were called, spoke in ecstatic visions and urged their followers to fast and pray, so that they might share these personal
revelations. His preachings spread from his native Phrygia, where he proclaimed the village of Pepuza as the site of the New Jerusalem, across the contemporary Christian world, to Africa and Gaul.
The divisive movement was partly inspired by a gnostic reading of the Gospel of John— "I will send you the advocate [paraclete], the spirit of truth" (Heine 1987, 1989; Groh 1985); the response to this continuing revelation split the Christian communities, and the episcopal hierarchy fought to suppress it. Bishop Apollinarius found the church at Ancyra torn in two, and he opposed the "false prophesy" (quoted by Eusebius 5.16.5).
Prisca claimed that Christ had appeared to her in female form. When she was excommunicated, she exclaimed "I am driven away like the wolf from the sheep. I am no wolf: I am word and spirit and
power."
The most widely known defender of Montanists was undoubtedly Tertullian, onetime champion of orthodox belief, who believed that the new prophecy was genuinely motivated and began to fall out of step with what he began to call "the church of a lot of bishops" (On Modesty). Irenaeus, who visited Rome during the height of the controversy, in the pontificate of Eleuterus, returned to find Lyon in dissension, and was inspired to write the first great statement of the mainstream Catholic position, Adversus Haereses.
Although the mainstream Christian church prevailed against Montanism within a few generations, inscriptions in the Tembris valley of northern Phrygia, dated between 249 and 279, openly proclaim their allegiance to Montanism. A letter of Jerome to Marcella, written in 385, refutes the claims of Montanists that had been troubling her [1].
This sect persisted into the eighth century, and some of its emphasis on direct, ecstatic personal presence of the Holy Spirit bears resemblance to all forms of Pentecostalism.
Differences between Montanism and Catholicism
The beliefs of Montanism contrasted with mainstream Catholicism in the following ways:
* The belief that the prophesies of the Montanists superseded and fulfilled the doctrines proclaimed by the Apostles.
* The encouragement of ecstatic prophesying and speaking in tongues, contrasting with the more sober and disciplined approach to theology dominant in mainstream Catholicism at the time and since.
* The view that Christians who fell from grace could not be redeemed, also in contrast to the Catholic view that contrition could lead to a sinner's restoration to the church.
* The prophets of Montanism did not speak as messengers of God: "Thus saith the Lord," but described themselves as possessed by God and spoke in his person. "I am the Father, the Word, and the Paraclete,"
said Montanus (Didymus, De Trinitate, III, xli); This possession by a spirit, which spoke while the prophet was incapable of resisting, is described by the spirit of Montanus: "Behold the man is like a lyre, and I dart like the plectrum. The man sleeps, and I am awake" (Epiphanius, "Hæreses", xlviii, 4).
* A stronger emphasis on the avoidance of sin, church discipline, and apocolyptic living than in mainstream Catholicism. They emphasized chastity, including forbiding remarriage.
Jerome and other church leaders claimed that the Montanists held the belief that the Trinity consisted of only a single person, similar to Sabellianism, but in contrast to the Catholic view that the Trinity is one God of three persons. Other Catholic church leaders and Tertullian denied this charge.
http://abacus.bates.edu/Faculty/Philosophy%20and%20Religion/rel_241/texts/montanism.html
MONTANISTS AND ANTI-MONTANISTS
(XXII - XXIII - XXIV - XXV)
Montanus and his two female attendants, Maximilla and Prisca, were enthusiastic revivalists of the mid-second century. They believed that in Montanus the Paraclete dwelt bodily, and that the heavenly Jerusalem would soon come down at Pepuza in Asia Minor. Their theology is thus largely based on the Johannine writings, which at this time were becoming very popular in Asia, and Gaius of Rome (XXVI) tried to cut the ground from under them by ascribing Gospel and Apocalypse to Cerinthus (Pseudo-Tertullian, 10). The visions and the prophecy of Montanism (which was sometimes called the New Prophecy, XXIII. I) have been thought of as a return to first-century Christianity; but there is little evidence that, except at Corinth, apostolic Christian- ity was ordinarily so effervescent.
The anonymous writer composed his treatise against the Montanists thirteen years after Maximilla's death, which probably took place under Marcus Aurelius. It was there- fore written in the last decade of the century. His book i8 dedicated to Avircius Marcellus, whose group of believers may well have been weaker than the Montanists at Hieropolis. Avircius Marcellus (XXIV) is known to us only from his legendary martyr-acts and from this inscription, which Sir William Ramsay discovered in Phrygia. It has been thought pagan; but it is more likely to come from a persecuted and secretive Christianity. Paul, Faith, the Fish (IchthysÑa symbol of Christ), born of a Virgin, the Eucharistic elements Ñthese are all surely Christian. Apollonius of Ephesus (XXV) wrote early in the third century, but because of his discussion of Montanus his fragments are included here.
XXII. -- THE MONTANIST ORACLES
Assembled in P. de Labriolle, La crise montaniste (1913), 34-105.
I. Montanus: "I am the Lord God Omnipotent dwelling in man." (Epiphanius, Haer. xlviii.11.)
2. Montanus: "I am neither an angel nor an envoy, but I, the Lord God, the Father, have come." (Ibid.)
3. Montanus: "I am the Father and the Son and the Paraclete." (Didymus, De trinitate iii. 41. 1.)
4. Montanus: "Why do you say 'the superman who is saved'? Because the righteous man will shine a hundred times brighter than the sun, and even the little ones among you who are saved, (will shine) a hundred times brighter than
moon." (Epiphanius, Haer. xlviii. 10.)
5. Montanus: "Behold, man is as a Iyre, and I hover over him as a plectrum; man sleeps but I watch; behold, the Lord is removing the hearts of men and giving them (new)
hearts." (Ibid., xlviii. 4.)
6. Montanus: "You are exposed to public reproach? It is for your good. He who is not reproached by men is proached by God. Do not be disconcerted; your righteousness has brought you into the midst (of all). Why are you disconcerted, since you are gaining praise~
Your power arises when you are seen by men." (Tertullian, De fuga 9)
7. Montanus: "Do not hope to die in bed nor in abortion nor in languishing fevers, but in
martyrdom, that he who suffered for you may be
glorified." (Ibid.)
8. Montanus: "For God brought forth the Word as a root brings forth a
tree, and a spring a river, and the sun a ray." (Tertullian, Adv. Prax. 8.)
9. Montanus: "The Church is able to remit sins; but I will not do so, lest others also sin." (Tertullian, De pudic. 21)
IO. Maximilla: "After me there will be no more prophecy, but the End." (Epiphanius, Haer. xlviii. 11.)
11. Maximilla: "I am driven as a wolf from the sheep. I am not a wolf; I am word, spirit, and power." (Eusebius, H.E. v. 16. 17.)
12. Maximilla: "Do not listen to me, but listen to Christ." (Epiphanius, Haer. xlviii. 12 )
13. Maximilla: "The Lord sent me as a partisan of this task, a revealer of this covenant, an interpreter of this promise, forced, whether I will or not, to learn the knowledge of
God." (Ibid. xlviii. 13.)
14. Prisca: "For continence brings harmony, and they see visions, and, bowing their heads,
they also hear distinct voices, saving and
mysterious." (Tertullian, De exh. cast. 10.)
I5. Prisca:"They are flesh, yet they hate the flesh." (Tertullian, De res. carn. 1l.)
16. Prisca: "Appearing as a woman clothed in a shining robe, Christ came to me [in sleep];
he put wisdom into me and revealed to me that this place is sacred and that here Jerusalem will come down from
heaven." (Epiphanius, Haer. xlix. 1.)
XXIII. ANONYMOUS AGAINST MONTANISM
(H.E. v. 16 f.)
1. "It is a long and very considerable time, beloved Avircius Marcellus, since you urged me to write some kind of treatise against the heresy of the followers of Miltiades, as they are called. Yet I have somehow held back until now, not through lack of ability to refute~falsehood~and bear witness to the truth, but from fear and extreme caution, lest by chance I might seem to some to be adding a new article or clause to the word of the New Covenant of the gospel, to which no one who has purposed to live according to the gospel itself may add, and from which no one may take away. But when recently I came to Ancyra in Galatia, and found the local church ringing with the noise of this new (not, as they themselves say, prophecy; but much rather, as will be shown) false prophecy, with the help of the Lord we discoursed, to the best of our ability, for many days in the church on every one of these same points, as well as on those which they put forward. The result was that the church rejoiced greatly and was confirmed in the truth, while they of the contrary side were for the moment discomfited, and the opposers put to grief. So when the local presbyters requested us to leave behind some memorandum of what had been said against them that oppose themselves to the word of truth (and there was present also our fellow-presbyter Zoticus of Otrous), though we did not do this, we promised to write it here, should the Lord permit us, and send it to them speedily."
2. "Their opposition, then, and their recent schismatical heresy as regards the Church, arose thus. There is reported to be a certain village in that Mysia which borders on Phrygia, called by the name of Ardabau. There it is said that a certain recent convert to the faith named Montanus (while Gratus was proconsul of Asia), in the immeasurable longing of his soul for the pre-eminence, first gave the adversary a passage into his heart; and that moved by the spirit he suddenly fell into a state of possession, as it were, and abnormal ecstasy, to such an extent that he became frenzied and began to babble and utter strange sounds, that is to say, prophesying contrary to the manner which the Church had received from generation to generation by tradition from the beginning. Some of those who heard at that time his spurious utterances were annoyed at him, as at one possessed and tormented by a demon, the prey of a spirit of error and a disturber of the people. So they rebuked and strove to check his speaking, mindful of the injunction and warning of the Lord to guard watchfully against the coming of false prophets [Matt. vii. ~5].
But otllers were puffed up, as if at a prophetical gift of the Holy Spirit, and filled with no slight conceit, and forgetful of the Lord's injunction. Therefore they called forth this maddening and cajoling spirit which was deceiving the people, by which they were beguiled and deceived, so that it could no longer be checked to silence. And by some art, or rather by the employment of such an evil artifice, the devil secretly stirred up and inflamed the minds which had lost in sleep the true faith, those of the disobedient persons whose ruin he had devised, and by whom Ñaccordingly !Ñhe was
honoured. So that he raised up two women as well, and so filled them with the spurious spirit that they too babbled in a frenzied, inopportune and unnatural manner, like him whom we mentioned
above. And the spirit pronounced them blessed who rejoiced and prided themselves in him, and puffed them up with the greatness of his promises; yet at times he would administer shrewd and plausible rebukes to their face, that he might seem capable of reproving also. Nevertheless, there were few who were thus deceived by the Phrygians.
Moreover, this arrogant spirit taught them to blaspheme the entire universal Church under heaven, because the spirit of false prophecy received neither honour nor admission into it. For when the faithful throughout Asia had met frequently and at many places in Asia for this purpose, and on examination of the new-fangled teachings had pronounced them profane, and rejected the heresy, these persons were thus expelled from the Church and shut off from its fellowship."
3. "Since, then, they also used to call us slayers of the prophets [Matt. xxiii. 31] because we did not receive their prophets of unbridled tongue (for these, they say, are they whom the Lord promised to send to the
people), let them answer us before God: Is there a single one, gentlemen, of these followers of Montanus or of the women who began to babble, who was persecuted by Jews or killed by lawless men? None. Or were any of them seized and crucified for the Name's sake? No. Or, indeed, were any of the women ever scourged in the synagogues of the Jews or stoned? Never in any way. No, it was another death that Montanus and Maximilla are reported to have died.
For report says that a maddening spirit drove both of them to hang themselves, though not at the same time; and a persistent rumour at the time of each death said that thus they died and ended their life, after the fashion of the traitor
Judas. Similarly, common report has it about that marvellous man, theÑso to speakÑ first steward of their so-called prophecy, Theodotus, that once, on being lifted and raised heavenwards, he fell into abnormal ecstasy, and entrusting himself to the spirit of error was whirled to the ground, and so met a miserable
end. But, my dear sir, let us not imagine we can be certain of a fact of this kind when we did not see it. Perhaps it was thus, perhaps it was not thus, that Montanus and Theodotus and the previously mentioned woman met their end."
4. "And let not the spirit which spoke in the person of Maximilla say in the same book Accotding to Asterius Urbanus, 'I am driven as a wolf from the sheep. I am not a wolf. I am word and spirit and power' [Montanist Oracles, 11]. But let him show clearly the power that is in the spirit, let him bring convincing proof of it, and by the spirit let him force an acknowledgement from those who were then present to prove and discourse with the talkative spirit. Approved men and bishops, Zoticus from the village of Cumana and Julian from Apamea, whose mouths the followers of Themiso muzzled, and would not allow them to refute the false spirit which was deceiving the people."
5. "And surely this falsehood too is now evident. For it is more than thirteen years today since the woman died, and there has been neither a partial nor a universal war in the world. Instead, by God's mercy the Christians have enjoyed continuous peace."
6. "So then when they have been refuted in all their arguments and are at a loss, they endeavour to take refuge in the martyrs, saying that they have many martyrs, and that this is a reliable proof of the power of that which is called among them the prophetic spirit. But this, as it appears, proves to be
ab-solutely untrue. For it is a fact that some of the other heresies have immense numbers of martyrs, yet surely we shall not for this reason give them our assent, nor acknowledge that they possess the truth. To take them first, those called Marcionites from the heresy of Marcion say that they have immense numbers of martyrs of
Christ, but as regards Christ himself they do not truly acknowledge
him."
7. "It is doubtless for this reason that whenever those called from the Church to martyrdom for the true faith meet with any so-called martyrs from the heresy of the Phrygians, they separate themselves from them and are perfected without having fellowship with them, for they do not wish to assent to the spirit which spoke through Montanus and the women. And that this is true, and that it took place in our time at Apamea on the Meander among those martyrs of Eumenia who were the companions of Gaius and Alexander, is an evident fact."
8. "I found these things in a certain treatise of theirs, in which they attack that treatise of our brother Miltiades in which he shows that a prophet ought not to speak in a state of ecstasy; and I abridged them."
9. " . . . but the false prophet in abnormal ecstasy, upon whom follow
licence and fearlessness. For while he begins with voluntary ignorance, he ends with involuntary madness of soul, as has been stated. But they cannot show any prophet under either the Old or the New [Prophecy] who was moved by the Spirit after this manner, neither Agabus nor Judas nor Silas nor the daughters of Philip, nor Ammia in Philadelphia nor Quadratus, nor can they make their boast of any others whatever not belonging to their number."
10. "For if, as they say, the women followers of Montanus succeeded to the prophetic gift after Quadratus and Ammia of Philadelphia, let them show which of their number, who were followers of Montanus and the women, succeeded to it. For the Apostle lays it down that the prophetic gift ought to continue in the whole Church until the Lord's coming.
But they cannot produce anyone, though it is the fourteenth year or thereabouts since the death of Maximilla."
XXIV. AVIRCIUS MARCELLUS, BISHOP (?) OF HIEROPOLIS
1. (An anti-Montanist writer says) "As for a long and very great time, beloved Avircius Marcellus, I have been urged by you to compose some writings against the heresy called after Miltiades...." (H.E. v. 16. 3.)
2. "I a citizen of the elect city erected this in my lifetime, that I might have before me a place for my body; my name is Avircius, a disciple of the pure Shepherd who feeds the flocks of sheep on mountains and plains, (5) who has great all-seeing eyes; he taught me . . . faithful scriptures. To Rome he sent me to see my king and to see the queen, golden-robed and golden sandalled; a people I saw there which has a splendid seal, (10) and I saw the plain and all the towns of Syria, and Nisibis, crossing the Euphrates; But everywhere I met with fellows; Paul was my companion, and Faith everywhere led the way and served food everywhere, the Fish from the spring Ñimmense, pure, which the pure Virgin caught (15) and gave to her friends to eat for ever, with good wine, giving the cup with the loaf. These things I Avircius said to be written thus in my presence. I am truly seventy-two years old. Let everyone who knows these things, and is in agreement, pray for Avircius. (20) No one is to put anyone else into my tomb; otherwise he is to pay the Roman treasury 2,000 gold pieces and (my) good native city of Hieropolis l,000 gold pieces." (W. M. Ramsay, Cities and Bishoprics of Phrygia, ii. 657.)
XXV. APOLLONIUS OF EPHESUS
(H.E. v. 18.)
1. "But his works and teaching show of what kind this new-fangled teacher [Montanus] is. This is he who taught dissolutions of marriages; who laid down laws on fasting; who named Pepuza and Tymion [small towns in Phrygia] Jerusalem, in his desire to draw to them.people from everywhere;
who appointed agents for collecting money; who has devised his scheme for receiving gifts, under the name of 'offerings'; who has supplied salaries to those who preach his doctrine, so that by means of gluttony the teaching of it may be more
effective."
2 We show, therefore, that these prophetesses were the very first, from the time when they were filled with the spirit, who left their husbands. How, then, did they speak falsehood, calling Priscilla a virgin?"
3. "Does not every scripture seem to you to forbid a prophet to receive gifts and money [see Didache 11 f.]? Therefore, when I see the prophetess possessed of gold and silver and costly apparel, how can I fail to reject her7"
4. " Moreover, Themiso too, he who is clothed with plausible covetousness, who did not bear the sign of confession, but put off his chains, thanks to a large sum of money, and (though this fact should have made him humble) boasts himself a martyrÑthis man, imitating the Apostle, dared to compose a catholic epistle,' and in it to instruct those whose faith had surpassed his, to contend with empty-sounding words, and to utter blasphemy against the Lord, the apostles and the holy Church."
5. "But not to speak of many, let the prophetess tell us about Alexander, who calls himself a martyr, with whom she banquets, to whom also many do reverence. It is not for us to speak of his robberies, and the other deeds of daring for which he has been punishedÑthe record office preserves the tale of them. Which, then, of the two forgives the other's sins7 Does the prophet forgive the rnartyr his robberies, or the martyr the prophet his deeds of covetousness? For though the Lord has said, 'Get you no gold, nor silver, nor two coats' [Matt. x. 9 f.] they, in complete contradiction, have transgressed as regards the getting of these forbidden things. For we shall show that they whom they call prophets and martyrs get their petty gains not only from the rich but also from poor people and orphans and widows. And if they are confident, let them take their stand on this, and come to a definite agreement on this understanding, that if convicted they may at least for the future cease to transgress. For one ought to prove the fruits of the prophet: for the tree is known by its fruit. But, that those who wish may know about Alexander, he has been convicted by Aemilius Frontinus, proconsul at Ephesus, not because of the Name, but because of the robberies he committed, being already an apostate. Next, he made a false appeal to the Name of the Lord and was released, having deceived the faithful in that city. And his own community, whence he came, would not receive him, because he was a robber. Those who desire to learn about him have the public archives of Asia. And yet the prophet knows nothing of him with whom he associated many years! In exposing this man we also expose, by means of him, his claim to be a prophet. We can show the same in the case of many; and if they have the courage, let them stand the exposure!"
6. "lf they deny that their prophets have received gifts, let them agree on this point, that if they are convicted of having received them, they are not prophets; and we will furnish countless demonstrations of the fact. But one must prove all the fruits of a prophet. Tell me, does a prophet dye his hair? Does a prophet paint his eyelids7 Does a prophet love adornment? Does a prophet play at gaming tables and dice? Does a prophet lend money at interest? Let them agree whether these things are permitted or not, and for my part I will show that they took place among them."
XXVI. GAIUS OF ROME
Gaius, a "very learned" Roman presbyter, was so vehemently anti-Montanist that he rejected the Gospel and Apocalypse of John, ascribing them to Cerinthus. Like the Alogi whom Epiphanius describes, he compared the Fourth Gospel with the Synoptics and found the Apocalypse in disagreement with the eschatology of authentic scripture.
Dialogue with Proclus
I. But I can point out the trophies of the apostles. For if you are willing to go to the Vatican, or to the Ostian Way, you will find the trophies of those who founded the church." H.E. ii. 25. 7.)
2. "But Cerinthus too, by means of revelations supposed to be written by a great apostle, falsely introduces wonderful stories to us as if they had been shown to him by
angels. He says that, after the resurrection, Christ's kingdom will be on earth, and the flesh, dwelling at Jerusalem, will again serve lusts and pleasures. And being an enemy to God's scriptures, and wishing to deceive, he says that there will be a period of a thousand years for wedding festivities." (H.E. iii. 28. 2.)
3. "Proclus speaks thus: But after him there were at Hierapolis in Asia four prophetesses, daughters of Philip. Their tomb is there, and that of their father." (H.E. iii.31.4.)
4. While curbing the recklessness and audacity of his opponents in composing new scriptures, he mentions only thirteen epistles of the holy apostle, not numbering the Epistle to the Hebrews with the rest; as there are even to this day some among the Romans who do not consider it to be the apostle's. (H.E. vi. 20. 3.)
Dialogue with Proclus (?)
Fragments from Bar Salibi in P. de Labriolle, La crise montaniste
5. "Tbese things [described in Rev. viii. 7-11] are not what will take place; for the coming of the Lord will take place as a thief by night." (Dionysius Bar Salibi, In Apoc., Actus et Epist. canon., interp. I. Sedlacek, p. 8.)
6. "As in the flood the heavenly bodies were not taken away, so at the End it will happen, according to the scripture [Matt. xxiv. 37] and the writing of PaulÑ-when they say peace and security, then their destruction will be at hand." [1 Thess. v. 3; against Rev. viii. 12.] (Ibid. p. 9 )
7. "How can the lawless be tormented by locusts [Rev. ix. 3-5] when the scripture says that sinners prosper and the righteous are persecuted in the world
[Ps. lxxiii. 2, Job xxi. 9?]?, and Paul says that believers shall be persecuted and evil men shall grow worse, deceiving and deceived [2 Tim. iii. 12 f.]?" (Ibid. p. 10.)
8. "It is not written that angels shall war nor that a quarter of mankind shall be destroyed [Rev. ix. 14 ff.], but that nation shall rise against nation [Matt. xxiv 7]." (Ibid. p. 10.)
9. "How can Satan be bound here [Rev. xx. 2] when it is written that Christ entered into the house of the strong man and bound him and took away his goods from him [Matt. xii. 29]?" (Ibid. p. 19.)
10. Hippolytus of Rome said: There was a man named Gaius who claimed that neither the Gospel nor the Apocalypse were John's, but rather belonged to the heretic
Cerinthus. (Ibid. p. 1.)
1 l . The heretic Gaius charged John with disagreeing with his fellow-evangelists since he says that after the baptism he went into Galilee and wrought the miracle of the wine at Cana. (P. de Labriolle, La crise montaniste, p. 285.)
Fragments of thc Alogi
The arguments used against the Johannine writings by this group are so similar to those of Gaius that it is probable that either he was a member of their group or else late writers against heretics have ascribed his writings to them. The remains of the Alogi are therefore included among the fragments of Gaius.
12. They say that these books are not by John but by Cerinthus, and are not worthy to be [readl in church. (Epiphanius, Haer. li. 3.)
13. They say that his books do not agree with the other apostles. "What does he say? 'In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with God, and the Logos was God,' and 'the Logos became flesh and tabernacled among us, and we beheld his glory, glory as of the Only-begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth,' and directly following, 'John bore witness and cried, saying, This is he of whom I spoke to you, and, This is the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world,' and after that it says, 'And they who heard said to him, Rabbi, where do you dwell?' And in the same place, 'The next day Jesus wanted to go to Galilee, and he finds Philip and says to him, Follow me.' And a little beyond this, 'And after three days there was a wedding in Cana of Galilee, and Jesus was invited to the wedding, and his disciples with him, and his mother was there.' But the other evangelists say that he spent forty days in the desert, tempted by the devil, and then returned and took the disciples to himself." (Epiphanius, Haer. Ii. 4.)
14."Behold, the second gospel [Mark] makes it clear concerning Christ, yet nowhere mentions being born again [John iii. 3]; but it says, 'In the Jordan the Spirit came upon him, and a voice, This is the beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased' [Mark i. 9-1 l]." (Epiphanius, Haer. Ii. 6.)
15. "The gospel written in the name of John is false. For after saying, 'The Logos became flesh and tabernacled among us,' and a few other things, it immediately says, 'There was a wedding in Cana of
Galilee."' (Epiphanius, Haer. li. 18.)
16. They say that since the gospel according to John does not say the things (as the other gospels) it is uncanonical (adiatheton), and they will not accept it. (Epiphanius, Haer. i. 18.)
17. "John spoke of the Saviour's keeping two passovers, but the other evangelists, only one." (Epiphanius, Haer. li. 22.)
18. We also find expressed somewhere in these writings that the divine Logos was begotten of God in the fortieth year of Augustus. Either the writer was mistaken, or through the beta's dropping out and only the mu remaining, he wrote only mu (forty) years. For he was begotten in the forty- second year of Augustus. He also says that it was on the twelfth day before the calends of July or June, I do not remember which, in the consulship of Sulpicius Camerinus and Vettius Pompeianus. I noticed this because those who mention the day of the conception, when Gabriel told the news to the virgin, share the opinion of some who say that according to tradition he was born in seven months. (Epiphanius, Haer. Ii. 29.)
Notes regarding numbers and numerology in the above passage:
(a) the number mb (Greek letters mu, beta) = 42. Omission of the beta (2) ==> 40.
(b) 7 months of pregnancy: 7 was a sacred number indicative of perfection; cf. its frequency in the Book of Revelation mentioned below.
19. "Of what value to me is the Apocalypse of John, which tells about seven angels and seven trumpets [Rev. viii. 2~?" (Epiphanius, Haer. Ii. 32.)
20. "Again it says, 'Write to the angel of the church in Thyatira' [Rev. ii. 18]; and there was no church at all there in Thyatira. How then did he write to a non-existent church?" (Epiphanius, Haer. Ii. 33.)
21. These incompetent word-chasers reject the gospel and apocalypse of John, and even his epistles, which agree with the gospel and apocalypse.
And they say, " 'I saw, and he said to the angel, Loose the four angels which are in the Euphrates. And I heard the number of the army, ten thousand times ten thousand, and a thousand times a thousand, and they were clad in breastplates of fire and brimstone and hyacinth! [Rev. ix. 14-17].'" They think that the truth is
ridiculous. (Epiphanius, Haer. Ii. 34.)
THE ABOVE COMPARRISONS TO THE MODERN DAY FALSE PROPHETS WHO HAVE "DRUNK" OF BACHUS/NEW WINE/LATTER RAIN
1. They recieved the paraclete by direct "experiential" GNOSIS i.e an 'experience' transduced via the 5 senses.
2.They claimed they were special emmisary elite prophets but DENIED their prophecies (i.e. not 100% accurate).
3.They claimed to hear 'mysterious saving voices' via their 'experience'.
4. Tongues and 'extasies" were a signature of their so-called 'paraclete'
5. They essued the immenant second coming of Christ and destruction.
6. They essued an imminant millenial reighn soon after which only included those who had "the experience"
7. They were "militant' in establishing a "Kingdom Now" mission..
8. They denied Pentecost in Acts and claimed they had recieved the "fulness" of a secondary.
9. They claimed NEW PROPHECY INSIGHT and revelation.
10. They fell into "trances" being witnessed as "posession"
11. They claimed revelation and insight via DREAMS AND VISIONS while sleeping.
12. They were found guilty of merchandising and 'robbing' adherents through lies and scandals.
13. They spoke and testified in the "first person", in place of God.
14. They claimed to have the "final revelation" of prophecy.
15.They had an intense predisposition to MARTYRDOM, but no substantiation that any occured.
16. They were arogant and elitist proclaiming a 'pre-eminence' because of their experential 'gnosis'
17. They practised "impartation" of the so-called 'paraclete' via 'touch' (i.e laying on of hands)
18. Those who would not adhere to their cult were condemned as 'slayers of the prophets'
19. They followed LICENCE and FEARLESSNESS against all reproach, rebuke, reproof based upon the biblical text.
20. They claimed they were an INUMERABLE COMPANY OF ANGELS (saints)
21. Some were accused of docetism and blatantly denying Christ (i.e. antichrist)
22. They denied the plainly understood text of Joel and even the Revelation, and placed themselves in the position of the LOCUSTS (i.e Gods 'army").
23.The majority of leaders committed SUICIDE.
24. They were discerned and diagnosed widely of being DEMON POSESSED
25. They were outlawed but maintained a foundation up until at least the 8th century through "secrecy"
26. They claimed they were the true Christ incarnate via the recieving "into their bodies from without" the paraclete.
27. They were either trinitarian or maintained a semblance through the ideaology of the "homousia" (i.e THING)
28. Church fathers adopted and defended their doctrine.
29. Their 'extasies' were deemed improper, ill mannered, 'licentious' and un-validated by scripture.
30. They constantly accused of being 'victimized' via persecution.
SOUND LIKE A GROUP YOU KNOW OF OUT THERE??? YOU BETCHA, AND THIS WAS HAPPENING 1900 YEARS AGO! THE MODERN SIGNS AND WONDERS MOVEMENT IS 2nd CENTURY MONTANISM!!!